1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

KJV-only myths about the 1769

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Logos1560, Jul 9, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 3 of 9
  1. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    Go stand in the corner, Han.
    [​IMG]
     
    #41 Ransom, Sep 28, 2005
  2. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    What did you write?
     
    #42 gb93433, Sep 28, 2005
  3. IFBChristian

    IFBChristian New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the reason so many people stand behind the KJV is how seriously the translators took their job of translating the Bible into English.
     
    #43 IFBChristian, Sep 29, 2005
  4. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What else is there to know? That there ARE errors, as have been well-documented on this and other boards.
     
    #44 robycop3, Sep 29, 2005
  5. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There aren't that many who stand behind the KJV ALONE.
     
    #45 robycop3, Sep 29, 2005
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    406
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Do KJV-only advocates actually have a KJV that is every word the same as the 1769 Oxford edition?

    Judges 11:7
    children of Gilead (1769)
    elders of Gilead (present Oxford)

    Judges 19:29
    coast (1769)
    coasts (present Oxford)

    1 Samuel 2:13
    priest's custom (1769)
    priests' custom (present Oxford)

    Nehemiah 1:11
    O LORD (1769)
    O Lord (present Oxford)

    Job 41:6
    thy companions (1769)
    the companions (present Oxford)

    Psalm 2:4
    the LORD (1769)
    the Lord (present Oxford)

    Psalm 18:47
    unto me (1769)
    under me (present Oxford)

    Psalm 44:23
    O LORD (1769)
    O Lord (present Oxford)

    Ps. 60:4
    feared (1769)
    fear (present Oxford)

    Ps. 78:66
    part (1769)
    parts (present Oxford)

    Ps. 107:16
    gates of iron (1769)
    bars of iron (present Oxford)

    Rom. 11:23
    not in unbelief (1769)
    not still in unbelief (present Oxford)

    2 Cor. 12:2
    about (1769)
    above (present Oxford)

    1 John 1:4
    our joy (1769)
    your joy (present Oxford)
     
    #46 Logos1560, Oct 12, 2005
  7. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Perhaps, but what do you base that statement upon and is there any evidence that you know of that the NASB or NKJV translators were any more or less serious than the KJV translators?

    HankD
     
    #47 HankD, Oct 12, 2005
  8. kubel

    kubel New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    0
    I disagree. I think most people stand by the KJV because they are told to. I used to be a strong KJVO because that's how I was raised. I was fed KJVO doctrine from a very young age and accepted it as truth.

    When I grew older, I decided to take a stand against false beliefs by only accepting what is in the Bible. I didn't want to slip into any cults (which there are many many christian based cults that even call themselves Baptists). Any doctrine that I recieved that could not be backed up by the Bible was discarded from my beliefs. At the time of making this decision, KJVO was not on my mind. To make a long story short, I came to find out that KJVO was not scripturally supported. There was no verse that says God supernaturally worked through the translators to produce an inerrant version in our tongue. And there is no verse that declares there will be one translation that is authorized by God. I would think if that would be the case, it would be mentioned as a prophecy somewhere. Add this with the simple history of the KJV and the words from the translators themselves, and I came to the conclusion that not only was KJVO unscriptural, it was also a false belief.

    So really, I think most decide to go with the KJV only because they are not aware of the simple truth.
     
    #48 kubel, Oct 12, 2005
  9. nate

    nate New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are errors in the KJV 1611 and any of the other editions check out Acts 5:30. But you will make excuses. (Ya'll always do)
     
    #49 nate, Oct 15, 2005
  10. nate

    nate New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #50 nate, Oct 15, 2005
  11. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The word "and" is a conjunction and was often used in the transition from Middle English to Modern English to indicate "together with" or "along with" or "as well as." The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and [together with or along with or as well as] hanged on a tree. In this case the conjunction "and" does not indicate sequence but rather simple connection. Unfortunately most 21st century English speakers are not familiar enough with their own native language to recognize such correct grammar with they see it. Probably part of the "dumbing down" of the American education system in the past 30 or 40 years.
     
    #51 TCassidy, Oct 15, 2005
  12. nate

    nate New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok. But I think that proves the point right? I think that is the very reason MV's should be used. Is because we don't know the older English. How about Matthew 23:24. Is it also differant in older English?

    Nate
     
    #52 nate, Oct 15, 2005
  13. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There is no doubt that the older grammar and syntax could use a thorough updating. [​IMG]
    No, I think that is more of a quibble over nothing. The word "at" does not necessarily mean "in or near." It can also mean "on account of" or "because of." We still use the word in that manner today when we say "I rejoiced at the birth of my grandson." It does not mean I rejoiced while present, but rather I rejoiced because of or on account of his birth.

    "Ye blind guides, which strain on account of a gnat, and swallow a camel."

    [​IMG]
     
    #53 TCassidy, Oct 15, 2005
  14. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    robycop, could you post the title of and/or a link to the thread where this is discussed? Thanks.
     
    #54 rlvaughn, Oct 15, 2005
  15. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    #55 TCassidy, Oct 15, 2005
  16. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thanks, but I meant the thread where this was discussed on the Baptist Board.
     
    #56 rlvaughn, Oct 15, 2005
  17. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Here's one, Mr. Vaughn:

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/2355.html#000000

    There are a coupla more, but I can't find'em right off. And while they're mostly about Easter and not necessarily about Moorman's guesswork, I believe this one I was able to find is representative of the others. If necessary, we can re-post the facts refuting Moorman's stuff.
     
    #57 robycop3, Oct 20, 2005
  18. grahame

    grahame New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    I suppose I have used quite a few English translations of the Bible in my time. I use anything to help me get to the sense of a particular passage of scripture. But I do prefer the King James version because I have always found it easier to memorise. I don't see many people memorising the Bible these days. I'm not sure if it is because of the many many different translations, or what. But that is one of the reasons that I use that translation more than any other.
     
    #58 grahame, Apr 17, 2006
  19. william s. correa

    william s. correa New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    The passage concerning Antioch talks about the ***Christians*** in THAT city. (Acts 11:26) </font>[/QUOTE]I notice that since the Bible never
    mentions Christians in the American Midwest,
    not even in the prophetic books. Therefore i must
    conclude by the same logic you are using,
    Brother Askjo, that you are NOT and cannot
    ever be a 'Christian'. Please note my logic
    by absurdity: i make an assumption (that Bible
    listing as a Christian is the only way you
    can be a Christian in that area) and progress
    logical to an absurd conclusion. The
    absurd shows the assumption to be false.
    The Bible listing the existence of Christians
    on a particular place is NOT the only way that
    a person can be a Christian in that place.

    Logic falls off the back of the fool
    like water off a duck :(     </font>[/QUOTE]Beem me up Scotty! Spock we need more Bibles!
     
    #59 william s. correa, Apr 22, 2006
  20. william s. correa

    william s. correa New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    What are you? And why do we need 400 translations in ENGLISH? I was once Roman Catholic and grew up that way yet I Knew Nothing of Dogma.
     
    #60 william s. correa, Apr 22, 2006
Page 3 of 9
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...